No.

14-1341

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT


APRIL DEBOER; JANE ROWSE, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PARENTS
AND NEXT FRIEND OF N.D.-R, R.D.-R AND J.D.-R, MINORS

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

RICHARD SNYDER, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS GOVERNOR
OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN; BILL SCHUETTE, IN HIS OFFICIAL
CAPACITY AS MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Defendants-Appellants.


On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, No. 12-cv-10285 (Hon. Bernard A. Friedman)


BRIEF OF THE COALITION OF BLACK PASTORS FROM DETROIT,
OUTSTATE MICHIGAN, AND OHIO AS AMICI CURIAE
SUPPORTING DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS


THOMAS MORE LAW CENTER
RICHARD THOMPSON, ESQ.
ERIN ELIZABETH MERSINO, ESQ.
P.O. BOX 393
ANN ARBOR, MI 48106
(734)827-2001

WILLIAM R. WAGNER
JOHN S. KANE
300 SOUTH CAPITOL
DATED: MAY 14, 2014 LANSING, MICHIGAN 48933
Case: 14-1341 Document: 74 Filed: 05/15/2014 Page: 1
i


CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Amici Curiae have not issued shares to the public, and no Amicus has any
parent company, subsidiary, or affiliate that has issued shared to the public. Thus,
no publicly held company owns 10 percent or more of stock of any Amicus.
Case: 14-1341 Document: 74 Filed: 05/15/2014 Page: 2
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT .......................................................... i

TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................... ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iii

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ............................................................................... 1

STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH FED. R. APP. P. 29(c)(5) ..................... 2

ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 2

I. LOVING v. VIRGINIA DOES NOT PROHIBIT STATES
FROM ENACTING RATIONAL LAWS THAT
PREVENT MARRIAGE REDEFINITION .................................................... 4

II. THE LOWER COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR BY
FAILING TO APPLY RATIONAL BASIS REVIEW ................................. 11

i. Providing an Optimal Environment for Raising Children
is Rational ............................................................................................ 14

ii. Proceeding With Caution is Rational ................................................. 19

iii. Traditional Morality Is Rational ......................................................... 20

iv. Federalism Concerns .......................................................................... 24

CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 26

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ....................................................................... 27

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................ 27

ADDENDUM ............................................................................................................ 1

Case: 14-1341 Document: 74 Filed: 05/15/2014 Page: 3
iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases Page

Baehr v. Lewin,
74 Haw. 530 (Haw. 1993) ..................................................................................... 5, 7

Baker v. Nelson,
409 U.S. 810 (1972) ........................................................................................... 24, 26

Brown v. Bd. of Educ.,
347 U.S. 483 (1954) ................................................................................................... 5

Central State University v. American Assoc. of University Professors,
526 U.S. 124 (1999) ................................................................................................... 8

Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning,
455 F.3d 859 (8
th
Cir. 2006) .................................................................................... 18

DeBoer v. Snyder,
Case No. 2:12-cv-10285, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37274, *6, 32-33 (E.D. Mich.
Mar. 21, 2014) ...................................................................................................passim

F.C.C. v. Beach Communics.,
508 U.S. 307 (1993) ................................................................................................. 24

Hadix v. Johnson,
230 F.3d 840 (6
th
Cir. 2000) ............................................................................... 12, 18

Heller v. Doe,
509 U.S. 312 (1993) ....................................................................................... 8, 12, 18

In re Winship,
397 U.S. 358 (1970) ........................................................................................... 24, 25

Johnson v. Robinson,
415 U.S. 361 (1947) ................................................................................................. 12

Loving v. Virginia,
388 U.S. 1 (1967) ..............................................................................................passim

Case: 14-1341 Document: 74 Filed: 05/15/2014 Page: 4
iv

Maynard v. Hill,
125 U.S. 190 (1888) ....................................................................................... 9, 12, 20

Meyer v. Nebraska,
262 U.S. 390 (1923) ........................................................................................... 13, 20

Radice v. People of State of New York,
264 U.S. 292 (1924) ..................................................................................... 12, 23, 24

Skinner v. State of Oklahoma,
316 U.S. 535 (1942) ................................................................................................... 9

Slaughter-House Cases,
83 U.S. 36 (1873) ....................................................................................................... 4

Sosna v. Iowa,
419 U.S. 393 (1975) ................................................................................................... 3

Strauder v. West Virginia,
100 U.S. 303 (1880) ................................................................................................... 4

United States v. Windsor,
133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013) ............................................................................................... 3



Statutes and Rules

MCL § 710.24 ............................................................................................................ 8

MCLS § 551.3 (1996) .............................................................................................. 10

Mich. Const. Art. I § 25 ............................................................................................. 2

U.S. Const., amend. XIV, 1 ....................................................................................... 4





Case: 14-1341 Document: 74 Filed: 05/15/2014 Page: 5
v

Other

Maggie Gallagher, Why Marriage Matters: The Case for Normal Marriage (Sept.
4, 2003) (http://marriagedebate.com/pdf/SenateSept42003.pdf) ............................ 22

Stacy Swimp, LGBT Comparison of Marriage Redefinition to Historical Black
Civil Rights Struggles is Dishonest and Manufactured, (March 7, 2014)
http://stacyswimp.net/2014/03/07/lgbt-comparison-of-marriage-redefinition-to-
historical-Black-civil-rights-struggles-is-dishonest-and-manufactured/ ............. 5, 10

Lesbian ‘throuple’ proves Scalia right on slippery slopes, Washington Times
Editorial, Apr. 25, 2014, (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014
/apr/25/editorial- throuple-in-paradise, last visited May 12, 2014) ......................... 10

Gay Marriage is a Lie: Destruction of Marriage, Masha Gessen
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9M0xcs2Vw4, last visited May 12, 2014)... 23

Senator Barack Obama, Keynote Address to Sojourners at the ‘Call to Renewal’
Conference (June 28, 2006) ..................................................................................... 21


Publications

Dent, G.W., Jr., Straight is Better: Why Law and Society May Justly Prefer
Heterosexuality, 15 Tex. Rev. L. & Pol. 359 (2011) ................................... 16, 17, 22

Duncan, W., Marriage on Trial, 12 J. Gender Race & Just. (2009) ....................... 19

Gallagher, M. (How) Does Marriage Protect Child Well-Being, in The Meaning of
Marriage (R.P. George & J.B. Elshtan, eds. (Scepter Publishers, Inc. 2010) ......... 17

Girgis, S., What is Marriage? 34 Harv. J.L & Pub. Pol’y, 245 (2011) ................ 9, 19

Hagerty, Barbara Bradley (May 27, 2008) “some Muslims in U.S. Quietly
Engage in Polygamy”............................................................................................... 10

Reilly, Robert R., Making Gay Okay: How Rationalizing Homosexual Behavior is
Changing Everything, 13 (Ignatius Press, 2014) ..................................................... 22

Satinover, J., Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth (Baker Books, 1996) ........ 19
Case: 14-1341 Document: 74 Filed: 05/15/2014 Page: 6
1

INTEREST OF AMI CI CURI AE
Amici are comprised of 110 Black Pastors, Churches, and supporting
institutions and groups from Detroit, Michigan, Outstate Michigan, and Ohio. A
complete list of amici, with their qualifications and institutional affiliations for
identification purposes, is included in the Addendum to this Brief. Amici devote
their lives to America’s time-honored family values, morality, and the Christian
faith. Amici pastors represent the interests of an additional over 200 pastors and
are leaders of churches throughout Michigan and Ohio. Amici head their pastoral
communities, preach, and spread the good news of God’s love.
As pastors, amici are considered to be shepherds who guide their church
communities and their local body of believers in accordance with the Bible, which
defines both the role and responsibilities of the pastor and the role and
responsibilities of the members of their church community. Amici believe that the
Bible defines what constitutes sound doctrine, not the culture, gender, or
personality. Amici bear the responsibility to oppose unsound doctrines and to
oppose practices that are harmful to the following of God’s teachings as outlined in
the Bible. Therefore, Amici support the vote of 2.7 million citizens of Michigan
who cast their vote and enacted the Michigan Marriage Amendment to secure the
sanctity of the traditional family, as it is defined by God in the Bible.
Case: 14-1341 Document: 74 Filed: 05/15/2014 Page: 7
2

The undersigned Amici have a strong interest in seeing the district court’s
unwarranted decision reversed. Amici must oppose any idea, law, rule or
suggestion that is contrary to the teachings of the Bible. Hence, when a solitary
judge strikes down a law and endangers the inviolability of marriage and the
family, the pastor has the preeminent responsibility of standing against such a
decision and leading the community to do so as well.
Amici Curiae file this Brief with the consent of all parties.
STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH FED. R. APP. P. 29 (c)(5)
No party’s counsel authored this Brief in whole or in part; no party or
party’s counsel contributed money that was intended to fund preparing or
submitting the Brief; and no person other than Amici Curiae, their members, or
their counsel contributed money that was intended to fund the preparation or
submission of the Brief.
ARGUMENT
The Michigan Marriage Amendment (hereinafter “MMA”) does not serve a
discriminatory purpose. Rather, it states:
To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for
future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman
in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or
similar union for any purpose.

Mich. Const. Art. I, § 25. The MMA denies no one the right to marry. Every man
in the State of Michigan is allowed to marry. Every woman in the State of
Case: 14-1341 Document: 74 Filed: 05/15/2014 Page: 8
3

Michigan is allowed to marry. The MMA simply codifies our long-standing
definition of marriage, and it is the right of our state’s voters to do so. United
States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675, 2691 (2013) (stating that “regulation of
domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive
province of the States.”) (quoting Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393, 404 (1975)).
As Christian pastors, amici know that all human beings have inherent value
because God created every person in His image. Thus, it is amici’s position that
the government should never classify or discriminate against another human being,
based upon who they are. Amici do not, therefore, condone discriminatory actions
toward any person and hold no animus toward anyone.
A person’s sexuality and sexual preferences, however, are not their state of
being, or even an immutable aspect of who they are, as race is. The truth of the
matter is that it is merely activity in which they engage. And for amici, truth
matters. The state has no responsibility to promote any person’s sexual
proclivities, whether heterosexual, homosexual, or otherwise—and certainly is not
required to accept that one’s sexual conduct preference is the same as an
immutable characteristic like race. Government may not regulate people based on
who they are, but it may regulate their conduct, including sexual conduct.
This brief addresses two of the fundamental flaws in the lower court’s
opinion. First, the lower court misapplied the reasoning behind the landmark case
Case: 14-1341 Document: 74 Filed: 05/15/2014 Page: 9
4

of Loving v. Virginia in rejecting the government’s argument that the State can
define marriage truthfully. Second, the lower court committed reversible error by
incorrectly applying rational basis review.
I. LOVI NG v. VI RGI NI A DOES NOT PROHIBIT STATES FROM
ENACTING RATIONAL LAWS THAT PREVENT MARRIAGE
REDEFINITION

The Equal Protection Clause holds special significance for Black Americans.
The text of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees that “no state shall ... deny to
any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of the laws,” and this text must
be viewed in the context of its history. U.S. Const., amend. XIV, § 1. When the
Equal Protection Clause became law in 1868, many Black Americans were
recently emancipated slaves. Four years later in 1872, the Supreme Court
suggested that white supremacist discrimination was “the evil [the Civil War
Amendments] were designed to remedy,” Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 72
(1873) (“We do not say that no one else but the negro can share in [their]
protection, but ... in any fair and just construction of any section or phrase of these
[Civil War] amendments, it is necessary to look to the purpose which we have said
was the pervading spirit of them all, the evil which they were designed to
remedy.”); Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303, 306 (1880) (“the colored race
for whose protection the [Fourteenth] Amendment was primarily designed”). It
then took nearly a century after the end of the Civil War for the Supreme Court to
Case: 14-1341 Document: 74 Filed: 05/15/2014 Page: 10
5

enforce a modicum of what we now know as substantive equality. Brown v.
Board. of Educ., 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
Comparing the dilemmas of same-sex couples to the centuries of
discrimination faced by Black Americans is a distortion of our country’s cultural
and legal history. The disgraces and unspeakable privations in our nation’s
history pertaining to the civil rights of Black Americans are unmatched. No other
class of individuals, including individuals who are same-sex attracted, have ever
been enslaved, or lawfully viewed not as human, but as property. See, e.g., Stacy
Swimp, LGBT Comparison of Marriage Redefinition to Historical Black Civil
Rights Struggles is Dishonest and Manufactured, (March 7, 2014),
(http://stacyswimp.net/2014/03/07/lgbt-comparison-of-marriage-redefinition-to-
historical-Black-civil-rights-struggles-is-dishonest-and-manufactured). Same-sex
attracted individuals have never lawfully been forced to attend different schools,
walk on separate public sidewalks, sit at the back of the bus, drink out of separate
drinking fountains, denied their right to assemble, or denied their voting rights. Id.
The legal history of these disparate classifications, i.e., immutable racial
discrimination and same-sex attraction, is incongruent. Yet, courts have
mistakenly drawn upon this incongruence as the basis for what it is now deeming
“marriage equality.”
Case: 14-1341 Document: 74 Filed: 05/15/2014 Page: 11
6

The Hawaii Supreme Court first ruled that a state’s failure to agree with
“same-sex” marriage violated the state’s Equal Rights Amendment. Baehr v.
Lewin, 74 Haw. 530 (Haw. 1993). This marked the first time a court used the
Supreme Court’s decision in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), to blur the line
of a suspect class (race) and a non-suspect class (sexual preference) in Equal
Protection Clause analysis.
To understand why this analysis is incorrect, it is essential to understand the
holding in Loving v. Virginia—that a state’s statutory scheme to prevent marriage
on the basis of racial classifications violated the Equal Protection Clause. Id. at 11.
The plaintiffs in Loving were two Virginia residents, a black woman and a white
man. Id. at 3. The plaintiffs legally married in Washington, D.C. and returned to
Virginia. Id. The state of Virginia, however, considered interracial marriage a
criminal offense. Id. The plaintiffs were charged and pleaded guilty to violating
the state’s ban on interracial marriage, and were sentenced to a year in jail, a
sentence suspended for a period of twenty-five (25) years if the plaintiffs left the
state. Id. In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court struck down Virginia’s ban
on interracial marriage on both equal protection and due process grounds. In doing
so, the Supreme Court held,
At the very least, the Equal Protection Clause demands that racial
classifications . . . be subjected to the “most rigid scrutiny,” . . . and,
if they are ever to be upheld, they must be shown to be necessary to
the accomplishment of some permissible state objective, independent
Case: 14-1341 Document: 74 Filed: 05/15/2014 Page: 12
7

of the racial discrimination which it was the object of the Fourteenth
Amendment to eliminate. . . . There is patently no legitimate
overriding purpose independent of invidious discrimination which
justifies this classification. . . . We have consistently denied the
constitutionality of measures which restrict the rights of citizens on
account of race.

Id. at 10-12 (emphasis added).
Loving was clearly a case about racial discrimination. The Baehr court
improperly expanded Loving by plucking from its dicta that: “The freedom to
marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the
orderly pursuit of happiness by free [people].” Baehr, 74 Haw. at 562-63 (quoting
Loving, 388 U.S. at 12). However, this statement is followed in Loving by the
critical qualification that this fundamental freedom is not to be denied “on so
unsupportable a basis as [] racial classifications,” which the Baehr court failed to
acknowledge. Loving, 388 U.S. at 12.
The Supreme Court in Loving never contemplated, much less addressed,
“same-sex marriage.” However, in Baehr, the court assumed, without reasoned
explanation, that because racial discrimination is morally wrong and
unconstitutional, that it necessarily follows that a state cannot recognize the
historical, moral, and Biblical value that marriage should be between a man and a
woman. Baehr, 74 Haw. at 572. As the Baehr dissent correctly pointed out,
“Loving is simply not authority for the plurality’s proposition that the civil right to
Case: 14-1341 Document: 74 Filed: 05/15/2014 Page: 13
8

marriage must be accorded to same sex couples.” Id. at 588 (Heen, J., dissenting).
There are critical differences between race and sexual preference classifications.
Race is a suspect class, and racial discrimination triggers strict scrutiny
review. In order for a law to survive strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection
Clause, the state interest involved must be more than important—it must be
compelling. Loving, 388 U.S. at 11. And the law itself must be necessary in order
to achieve the objective. Id. If any less discriminatory means of achieving the
goal exists, the law will fall. Id. As a practical matter, it is rare for a law to
survive strict scrutiny review.
In contrast, and as the lower court in the instant case correctly held, one’s
sexual preference does not involve a suspect class and merits rational basis review.
DeBoer v. Synder, Case No. 2: 12-cv-10285, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37274, *6,
32-33 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 21, 2014). Rational basis review, asks whether “there is
some rational relationship between disparity of treatment and some legitimate
governmental purpose.” Central State Univ. v. American Assoc. of University
Professors, 526 U.S. 124, 128 (1999), citing Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312, 319-321
(1993). Although the lower court claimed to follow rational basis review, it
misapplied this test to overturn the MMA.
1


1
Additionally, the lower court should not have even touched, much less
overthrown, the MMA because it simply did not need to adjudicate Michigan’s
Constitution. The MMA did not cause these plaintiffs any harm. If they were
Case: 14-1341 Document: 74 Filed: 05/15/2014 Page: 14
9

The lower court opined that “Loving has profound implications for this
litigation.” Deboer, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37274 at *48. The court was right in
the sense that Loving affirmed the fundamental constitutional right of a man and
woman to marry because “[m]arriage [between a man and a woman] is . . .
fundamental to our very existence and survival.” Skinner v. State of Oklahoma,
316 U.S. 535, 541, (1942) (pertaining to the importance of procreation); Maynard
v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888) (signifying “the relation of husband and wife, deriving
both its rights and duties from a source higher than any contract of which the
parties are capable.”). Loving emphasized the importance of traditional marriage
to all Americans. It did not pave the way for the destruction of that vital
institution. So-called “marriage equality” rests on the false premise that all
individuals should be allowed to “marry” (actually, to redefine “marriage” to fit
their desires) because the right to marry is the fundamental right of all. But Loving
and its progeny do not hold that if prohibited conduct is defined by reference to a
proclivity, then that prohibition violates the Equal Protection Clause. See S.
Girgis, R.P. George, & R.T. Anderson, What is Marriage? 34 Harv. J. L & Pub.

caused any harm (which amici contest), it is by section 24 of the Michigan
Adoption Code, Mich. Comp. Laws § 710.24, and possibly certain other statutes
that deny them the benefits they seek. To the extent those statutes could be
amended to permit them to receive the benefits they seek, there is no reason to
strike the MMA. If they cannot be amended and they violate the Constitution
somehow (which amici contest), then they should be stricken, not the MMA. See
What is Marriage, supra at 281 (observing that any pertinent need for benefits can
be accommodated by statute, rather than by redefining “marriage”).
Case: 14-1341 Document: 74 Filed: 05/15/2014 Page: 15
10

Pol’y, 245, 249 (2011) (hereafter, “What is Marriage”) (“antimiscegegenation was
about whom to allow to marry, not what marriage was essentially about; and sex,
unlike race, is rationally related to the latter question”). The “marriage equality”
slogan is also self-defeating, because it is a standard-less standard that renders
“marriage” equally meaningless for all. See id. at 269-75 (discussing that the logic
of Plaintiffs’ position demands “equal marriage rights” for bigamists, polygamists,
and virtually any other arrangement individuals might want to create).
Although the lower court cited Loving for the proposition that states cannot
discriminate in violation of the Equal Protection Clause, all states routinely require
certain qualifications to obtain a marriage license and disallow certain individuals
who do not meet those qualifications. States discriminate against first cousins, for
example, by not allowing them to marry. MCLS § 551.3 (1996). States
discriminate against bigamists, polygamists, and polyamorists in the licensing of
marriage, and it is within the states’ right to do so. See, e.g., Barbara Bradley
Hagerty, Some Muslims in U.S. Quietly Engage in Polygamy, National Public
Radio: All Things Considered, May 27, 2008 (discussing that polygamy is illegal
in all fifty states); Lesbian ‘throple’ proves Scalia right on slippery slopes,
Washington Times Editorial, Apr. 25, 2104, http://www.washingtontimes.com/
news/2014/apr/25/editorial-throuple-in-paradise/ (lesbian threesome claim to have
married). Under the lower court’s reasoning such restrictions would no longer be
Case: 14-1341 Document: 74 Filed: 05/15/2014 Page: 16
11

valid. The lower court discarded the limits on marriage that have always existed
under Michigan law and, acting as a super-legislature, replaced the traditional and
rational definition of marriage with one that has no discernible limits.
It is clearly within a state’s right to define marriage between a man and a
woman when that licensing restriction passes rational basis review. The Court
should review the MMA and the issue of “same-sex marriage,” not under an
unspoken or implicit heightened review, but as any other law that does not involve
a suspect class. Loving does not require a higher standard, but it does counsel a
different outcome: protection of Michigan citizens’ fundamental right of marriage.
The fact that American media or other factions erroneously characterize the
traditional meaning of “marriage” as being on par with the civil rights deprivations
of Black Americans does not make it so. The law treats racial classifications as
wholly distinct from sexual preference classifications. And here, such different
classifications necessarily yield different outcomes.
II. THE LOWER COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR BY
FAILING TO APPLY RATIONAL BASIS REVIEW

The lower court committed reversible error by placing the burden of proof
on the state to establish a legitimate government interest. Although the lower court
cited the correct constitutional standard applicable in this case, it thereafter failed
to properly apply that burden.
Case: 14-1341 Document: 74 Filed: 05/15/2014 Page: 17
12

It is not the State’s burden, on rational-basis review, to justify the State’s
traditional definition of marriage. The Supreme Court has unequivocally held that
“the burden is on the one attacking the legislative arrangement to negate every
conceivable basis which might support it, whether or not the basis has a foundation
in the record.” Heller, 509 U.S. at 320-21 (citations and quotations omitted). A
law is constitutional even if it is “based on rational speculation unsupported by
evidence or empirical data.” Id. at 320. Courts simply do not have “a license . . .
to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic of legislative choices.” Id. (citations and
quotations omitted). As the Supreme Court elsewhere noted: “The inequality
produced, in order to encounter the challenge of the Constitution, must be ‘actually
and palpably unreasonable and arbitrary.’” Radice v. People of the State of New
York, 264 U.S. 292, 296 (1924) (citations and quotations omitted).
In matters involving a non-suspect classification, the Supreme Court permits
both under- and over-inclusiveness in the drafting of such laws. All the state is
required to show is that the definition rationally advances a legitimate state
interest. See, e.g., Johnson v. Robison, 415 U.S. 361, 385 (1947). “The
government has no obligation to produce evidence to support the rationality of its .
. . [imposed] classifications and may rely entirely on rational speculation
unsupported by any evidence or empirical data.” Hadix v. Johnson, 230 F.3d 840,
843 (6th Cir. 2000).
Case: 14-1341 Document: 74 Filed: 05/15/2014 Page: 18
13

Because the current definition of marriage rationally advances Michigan’s
interests, e.g., promoting procreation and effective parenting,
2
the lower court
should have rejected the Plaintiffs’ Equal Protection claim as a matter of law. The
lower court, however, decided that the MMA does not “proscribe conduct in a
manner that is rationally related to any conceivable legitimate governmental
purpose.” Deboer, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37274 at *7. To reach this iconoclastic
conclusion, the lower court paid lip service to the governing rule, but then turned
traditional rational basis review on its head. Id. at *34-45.
The lower court first offered a series of rationalizations to bolster the
inadequacies and limitations of Plaintiffs’ expert testimony and to attack the
testimony of Defendants’ experts. But in the end, the lower court concluded that
because the State failed to demonstrate a measurable difference in some child-
rearing “outcomes” that the lower court deemed critical, the 2.7 million people of
Michigan who enacted the MMA were irrational for not endorsing homosexual
conduct as a matter of public policy.


2
Indeed, long ago, in Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190, 205 (1888), the Court
characterized marriage as “the most important relation in life,” and as “the
foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither
civilization nor progress,” id. at 211. In Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399
(1923), the Court recognized that the right “to marry, establish a home and bring
up children” is a central part of the liberty protected by the Constitution.

Case: 14-1341 Document: 74 Filed: 05/15/2014 Page: 19
14

i. Providing an Optimal Environment for Raising Children is
Rational.

Some truths are self-evident. Among them are that men and women are
different. In fact, it is clear from our very existence that men are made for women,
and women for men. None of us would be here but for that truth. Another self-
evident truth is that it is best for children to be raised by their parents whenever
possible. There have been many theories to the contrary throughout history, but
they have all proven vacuous at best. Public policy that recognizes and acts on
these truths is not unfairly discriminatory. In fact, the only way to have sound
public policy is to build on such truths.
In deciding to radically redefine “marriage,” the lower court rejected these
truths. It held that Michigan voters were irrational in affirming a notion upon
which our nation was founded and has flourished for over two hundred years: that
the natural family is the optimal environment in which children should be raised.
Deboer, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37274 at *35-40. The lower court rejected the
convictions of 2.7 million Michigan voters and relied on the testimony of several
individuals it deemed experts on the issue, who claim there is “no difference”
between heterosexual and homosexual couples raising children. Id. at *13, 23, 27,
29, 30, 37. Remarkably, the lower court found all the “experts” supporting the
proposition to be “highly” or “fully” credible, and it found all who testified against
Case: 14-1341 Document: 74 Filed: 05/15/2014 Page: 20
15

Plaintiffs’ “no difference” theory to have no credibility at all. See id. at *13, 23,
27, 29, 30, 35-40.
One reason the lower court failed to provide an adequate basis for its
conclusion that this testimony supported the lower court’s conclusion of “no
difference,” is that it never satisfactorily established which criteria were relevant to
its inquiry—i.e., which differences matter, and why. The lower court seems to
have relied primarily on the testimony of Mr. Brodzinsky in determining that:
“What matters is the ‘quality of parenting that’s being offered’ to the child.” Id. at
*8. And the court adopted Mr. Brodzinsky’s definition of parental quality. See id.
at *8, 35. The lower court failed to articulate the “scientific basis” for why certain
qualities the “experts” chose and purported to measure are the qualities we as a
people must adopt and endorse. What are the so-called experts’ qualifications to
make moral decisions about what makes for good parenting or addresses the
concerns a parent has for his child? The evidence that these social scientists
actually measured those crucial factors—or are in any way qualified to even
identify, much less measure, those factors are nowhere in the record.
3


3
These experts largely purported to measure one or more facets of children’s
school performance, which the court then equated to “healthy development,” id. at
*28, 29, 37; and even that parameter was hardly conclusive in supporting the
court’s “no difference” thesis, id. at *37. There is no scientific basis for the
conclusion that a child’s well being is properly determined by checking whether he
or she has dropped out of school or been held back a grade at some point. It is a
Case: 14-1341 Document: 74 Filed: 05/15/2014 Page: 21
16

These simply are not “scientific” matters. Materialistic science cannot
measure the non-material. It cannot define or select morality, values, or the
necessary components of a successful family, much less measure these factors. It
is an injustice and exhibits a gross misreading of the Constitution to install such
self-styled “social” experts as the moral compass of the population. Further, these
studies fail to demonstrate that the people of Michigan’s concept of family and
marriage is irrational. Given the fundamental flaws in the lower court’s premises
and reasoning, its findings are unreliable.
The lower court also cited “Rosenfeld’s study that children raised by same-
sex couples progress at almost the same rate through school as children raised by
heterosexual couples.” Id. at *10. Leaving aside the fact that progress through
school is hardly a conclusive measure for an optimal child-rearing environment,
4

this obviously does not “refute” the premise that heterosexual couples make better
parents. See, e.g., G.W. Dent, Jr., Straight is Better: Why Law and Society May
Justly Prefer Heterosexuality, 15 Tex. Rev. L. & Pol. 359, 371-406 (2011).
Next the court touted Brodzinsky’s opinion that “parental gender plays a
limited role, if any, in producing well-adjusted children.” Deboer, 2014 U.S. Dist.

reasonable factor to consider among many others, but not a factor that can
“scientifically” be weighed.
4
When it found it convenient to advance its argument, the court actually admitted
that “[o]ptimal academic outcomes for children cannot logically dictate which
groups may marry.” Id. at *39.
Case: 14-1341 Document: 74 Filed: 05/15/2014 Page: 22
17

LEXIS 37274 at *36. This raises the obvious question of which parent is it that
children can supposedly do without—the mother or the father? Curiously, the
court and its experts failed to elucidate this particular point.
Obviously, scientific observations of human biology, human history, and our
own experience, common sense and reason tell us that children come exclusively
from opposite sex unions, and children benefit from being raised by their
biological parents whenever possible. See, e.g. Straight Is Better, supra at 376,
378, 380-81; What is Marriage, supra at 258; M. Gallagher, (How) Does Marriage
Protect Child Well-Being, in The Meaning of Marriage (R.P. George & J.B.
Elshtain, eds.) (Scepter Publishers, Inc., 2010) at 197-212 (see especially 208-12
regarding gender roles).
These are but a few of the flaws with the lower court’s “debate-ending”
scientific foray. There is no real question these “experts” have failed to prove that
amici and the majority of Michigan’s electorate, like the Founders of this Nation,
are irrational for promoting the traditional family structure and defending its
definition from destructive innovations like the one the lower court unjustly seeks
to impose. When the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals decided a case practically
identical to this, it recognized the correct legal principles:
The State argues that the many laws defining marriage as the union of
one man and one woman and extending a variety of benefits to
married couples are rationally related to the government interest in
“steering procreation into marriage.” By affording legal recognition
Case: 14-1341 Document: 74 Filed: 05/15/2014 Page: 23
18

and a basket of rights and benefits to married heterosexual couples,
such laws “encourage procreation to take place within the socially
recognized unit that is best situated for raising children.” The State
and its supporting amici cite a host of judicial decisions and secondary
authorities recognizing and upholding this rationale. The argument is
based in part on the traditional notion that two committed
heterosexuals are the optimal partnership for raising children, which
modern-day homosexual parents understandably decry. But it is also
based on a “responsible procreation” theory that justifies conferring
the inducements of marital recognition and benefits on opposite-sex
couples, who can otherwise produce children by accident, but not on
same-sex couples, who cannot. See Hernandez v. Robles [New York,
2006]; Morrison v. Sadler, [Indiana, 2005]. Whatever our personal
views regarding this political and sociological debate, we cannot
conclude that the State's justification "lacks a rational relationship to
legitimate state interests." Romer, 517 U.S. at 632.

Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, 455 F.3d 859 (8th Cir. 2006). Under the
applicable rational basis review, it is enough for the state to promote natural
families merely because natural families provide some benefit to the healthy
development of our children. See, e.g., Hadix, 230 F.3d at 843.
The lower court also criticized various aspects of the MMA, arguing that if
the state desires to promote an optimal environment in which its children may be
raised, it cannot do so unless it does so with extraordinary empirical precision.
Deboer, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37274 at *39-40 (e.g., applying strict logic of
Michigan marriage licensing, only wealthy suburban Asians should be allowed to
marry). In doing so, the lower court essentially applied the “least restrictive
means” component of the strict scrutiny test. The lower court in Bruning made the
same error. And the Court of Appeals in that case cogently corrected this error:
Case: 14-1341 Document: 74 Filed: 05/15/2014 Page: 24
19

The district court rejected the State's justification as being “at once too
broad and too narrow.” Citizens for Equal Protection, 368 F. Supp.
2d at 1002. But under rational-basis review, “Even if the
classification . . . is to some extent both underinclusive and
overinclusive, and hence the line drawn . . . imperfect, it is
nevertheless the rule that . . . perfection is by no means required.”
Vance v. Bradley, 440 U.S. 93, 108 (1979). Legislatures are permitted
to use generalizations so long as “the question is at least debatable.”
Heller, 509 U.S. at 326 (quotation omitted). The package of
government benefits and restrictions that accompany the institution of
formal marriage serve a variety of other purposes. The legislature --
or the people through the initiative process -- may rationally choose
not to expand in wholesale fashion the groups entitled to those
benefits. “We accept such imperfection because it is in turn rationally
related to the secondary objective of legislative convenience.” Vance,
440 U.S. at 109.

Bruning, 455 F.3d at 868. In essence, Michigan is entitled to promote what has
proven to be the healthiest social structure for the rearing of children and
propagation of society, and it is not required to simultaneously promote less
healthy alternatives.
ii. Proceeding With Caution is Rational.

The lower court rejected the State’s interest in not promoting homosexual
couples by redefining marriage because the State is not yet convinced by any
credible evidence that this would serve the public interest.
5
Deboer, 2014 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 37274 at *40-42. The lower court asserted that although it is

5
There is ample evidence that the lower court was clearly premature in declaring
that the scientific aspect of the debate is over. See, e.g. Straight is Better, supra, at
376-82; W. Duncan, Marriage on Trial, 12 J. Gender Race & Just. 493, 498-502
(2009); What is Marriage, supra, at 270, 278; J. Satinover, Homosexuality and the
Politics of Truth 31-36, 49-70 (Baker Books, 1996).
Case: 14-1341 Document: 74 Filed: 05/15/2014 Page: 25
20

sometimes prudent to delay implementation of radical social experiments, a state
cannot do so when there is a deprivation of constitutional rights. Id.
In addition to being yet another manifestation of the lower court’s misplaced
“least restrictive means” test, this reasoning is tautological. The question is
whether there is a violation of constitutional rights. The lower court cannot
assume a violation in order to negate our State’s interest in avoiding the
irreversible social disruption such a redefinition would cause, when that very
interest indicates the lack of such a violation under the rational basis standard.
Moreover, the lower court ignores amici’s constitutional right to natural
marriage. In the numerous Supreme Court cases defending the “fundamental
right” of marriage, the Supreme Court refers exclusively to the right of the only
true marriage that there is: one man and one woman. See, e.g., Maynard, 125 U.S.
at 205; Meyer, 262 U.S. at 399. To redefine that institution to include whatever
people prefer at a given moment is to destroy that institution. The lower court cites
no authority to destroy our fundamental right to marriage by defining it out of
existence.
iii. Traditional Morality Is Rational.

It is true that the MMA upholds the traditional, moral meaning of
“marriage.” But it is not true that the people of the State of Michigan have thus
unfairly discriminated against individuals engaging in homosexual conduct. In the
Case: 14-1341 Document: 74 Filed: 05/15/2014 Page: 26
21

MMA, Michigan’s citizens merely codified the meaning of the term “marriage”
that has always existed in this state and this nation.
When the lower court said it was rejecting morality as a basis for Michigan’s
codification of its traditional marriage rule, it was not being entirely forthright.
Deboer, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37274 at *44 (“tradition and morality are not
rational bases for the MMA”). What it actually did was to supplant the tried and
true morality of the Judeo-Christian tradition upon which our country was founded
with the trendy, relativist morality of political correctness.
6
It rejected our
Founders’ judgment—which we have inherited and which we share—and just
replaced it with its own.
7


6
Like any lawgiver, the lower court cannot avoid the application of morality.
See, e.g., Senator Barack Obama, Keynote Address to Sojourners at the ‘Call to
Renewal’ Conference (June 28, 2006) (“Our law is by definition a codification of
morality, much of it grounded in Judeo-Christian tradition.”). Unlike a good
lawgiver, however, the lower court was not forthright in exposing and explaining
the morality it employed. If it believes we are endowed by our Creator with
certain inalienable rights, then let the court explicitly argue that the Creator
endowed us with the right to “marry” a person of the same sex. If the lower court
believes we are not so endowed, but make up our own rights, it should also explain
why it gets to make them up.
7
See, e.g., What is Marriage, supra, at 286 (“there is no truly neutral marriage
policy”); Straight Is Better, supra at 363-64 (“Sensible scholars acknowledge that
moral neutrality is not only undesirable but impossible.”). Robert Reilly more
fully explains this disingenuous displacement of morality and tradition:

The legal protection of heterosexual relations between a husband and
wife involves a public judgment on the nature and purpose of sex. That
judgment teaches that the proper exercise of sex is within the marital
bond because both the procreative and unitive purposes of sex are best
Case: 14-1341 Document: 74 Filed: 05/15/2014 Page: 27
22

Amici understand better than many that “tradition” alone cannot justify a
law, no matter how hoary its pedigree. But amici do not argue the MMA should
remain unmolested by the federal judiciary merely because it upholds long-
standing tradition. Contrary to the lower court’s facile analysis, mere “tradition” is
not the reason the MMA is rational. The reasons for the tradition are the reason
the MMA is rational, because the reasons for the tradition are entirely rational.
See, e.g., Bruning, supra, at 632 (promotion of traditional family structure as sound
social foundation is rational); What is Marriage, supra, at 248-259 (discussing
fundamental nature of marriage as a public good and revisionists’ failure to justify
replacing it with their relativist surrogate); M. Gallagher, Why Marriage Matters:
The Case for Normal Marriage, available at http://marriagedebate.com/pdf/Senate

fulfilled within it. The family alone is capable of providing the
necessary stability for the profound relationship that sexual union both
symbolizes and cements and for the welfare of the children who issue
from it.
The legitimization of homosexual relations changes that judgment and
the teaching that emanates from it. What is disguised under the rubric of
legal neutrality toward an individual’s choice of sexual behavior—
“equality and freedom for everyone”—is, in fact, a demotion of
marriage from something seen as good in itself and for society to just
one of the available sexual alternatives. In other words, this neutrality is
not at all neutral; it teaches and promotes indifference, where once there
was an endorsement.
Reilly, Robert R., Making Gay Okay: How Rationalizing Homosexual
Behavior is Changing Everything, 13 (Ignatius Press, 2014).

Case: 14-1341 Document: 74 Filed: 05/15/2014 Page: 28
23

Sept42003.pdf (discussing research demonstrating benefits of traditional family
structure); Straight is Better, supra at 359, 371-75 (the biological family is
universally recognized as a unique social unit worthy of special encouragement
and protection).
The lower court’s theory that the people of Michigan have always been
“actually and palpably unreasonable and arbitrary” in defining marriage as the
union of one man and one woman is an insult and is itself palpably unreasonable
and arbitrary. See Radice, 264 U.S. at 294. The people of the State of Michigan
have not violated the United States Constitution by merely codifying the traditional
definition of “marriage.” If anything, it is the lower court that has arguably
violated an oath to uphold the Constitution by re-writing it in direct defiance of the
very rules that it admits govern the exercise of its limited authority.
There is no surer way to destroy an institution like marriage than to destroy
its meaning.
8
If “marriage” means whatever one judge wants it to mean, it means
nothing. If it has no fixed meaning, it is merely a vessel for a judge’s will. It is

8
Destroying marriage by destroying its meaning is the admitted goal of many
“same-sex marriage” advocates. See , e.g., What is Marriage, supra, at 277-78
(citing numerous gay activists and supporters who openly advocate the destruction
of traditional concepts of marriage and family); Why Marriage Matters, supra; Gay
Marriage is a Lie: Destruction of Marriage, Masha Gessen
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9M0xcs2Vw4, last visited May 12, 2014) (In
the words of gay activist Masha Gessen …, “Gay marriage is a lie . . . Fighting for
gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage
when we get there. It’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not
exist.”).
Case: 14-1341 Document: 74 Filed: 05/15/2014 Page: 29
24

used as a subterfuge for judicial legislation. And as Montesquieu observed: “There
is no greater tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of law and in
the name of justice.” Charles de Montesquieu, Montesquieu's Considerations on
the Causes of the Grandeur and Decadence of the Romans, 279 (Jehu Baker trans.,
Tiberius 1882).
iv. Federalism Related Concerns

The lower court correctly observed that states’ rights to regulate the family
are subject to federal constitutional limitations. Deboer, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
37274 at *44-51. But as the Supreme Court held in F.C.C. v. Beach Communics.,
508 U.S. 307, 320(1993),“[t]he assumptions underlying [a law’s] rationales may be
erroneous, but the very fact that they are ‘arguable’ is sufficient, on rational-basis
review, to ‘immunize’ the [law] from constitutional challenge.” Under the Tenth
Amendment that argument is one to be conducted in the various States. It has been
properly conducted in Michigan.
The lower court admitted that we could amend our Constitution in this way
as long as we do so on a “fairly debatable” basis.
9
But the lower court has held
that only it can define what is fairly debatable, and that this issue is not. It

9
Radice, 264 U.S. at 294 (“Where the constitutional validity of a statute depends
upon the existence of facts, courts must be cautious about reaching a conclusion
respecting them contrary to that reached by the Legislature; and if the question of
what the facts establish be a fairly debatable one, it is not permissible for the judge
to set up his opinion in respect of it against the opinion of the lawmaker.”).
Case: 14-1341 Document: 74 Filed: 05/15/2014 Page: 30
25

basically used a “have a debate, but I’ll always win” standard. Justice Black
evaluated such conduct in his In re Winship Dissent: “When this Court assumes for
itself the power to declare any law—state or federal—unconstitutional because it
offends [a] majority[] [of the court’s] own views of what is fundamental and
decent in our society, our Nation ceases to be governed according to the ‘law of the
land’ and instead becomes one governed ultimately by the ‘law of the judges.’” In
re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 387 (1970) (Black, J., dissenting).
This court should not follow the lower court in ignoring the fact that it is the
Plaintiffs who seek to change our definition of marriage; and they seek to do it not
by consulting the will of the people, but by asking a few unelected federal officials
to over-rule the longstanding will of the people. As Justice Black observed, “[t]he
people, through their elected representatives, may of course be wrong in making …
determinations [of fairness], but the right of self-government that our Constitution
preserves is just as important as any of the specific individual freedoms preserved
in the Bill of Rights.” Id. at 385. Thus, it is important to recognize that amici and
the other 2.7 million Michigan voters who cherish the institution of marriage and
the traditional family that the Supreme Court has often acknowledged as
foundational for our nation also have important constitutional rights at stake in this
debate.
Case: 14-1341 Document: 74 Filed: 05/15/2014 Page: 31
26

Plaintiffs currently have a right to marry that is equal to any other adult in
Michigan. Under the guise of constitutional liberty and equal protection, the lower
court unilaterally destroyed the institution of marriage long recognized by the
people of the state of Michigan, and replaced it with its own standard-less and
unsustainable version. As the only other Federal Court of Appeals to adjudicate
this issue correctly observed:
In the nearly one hundred and fifty years since the Fourteenth
Amendment was adopted, to our knowledge no Justice of the Supreme
Court has suggested that a state statute or constitutional provision
codifying the traditional definition of marriage violates the Equal
Protection Clause or any other provision of the United States
Constitution. Indeed, in Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810(1972), when
faced with a Fourteenth Amendment challenge to a decision by the
Supreme Court of Minnesota denying a marriage license to a same-
sex couple, the United States Supreme Court dismissed “for want of a
substantial federal question.”

Bruning, 455 F.3d at 870. The lower court clearly overstepped its authority
usurping the people of Michigan’s right to retain the traditional meaning of
marriage.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Amici respectfully request that this Court
reverse the judgment of the district court.
Respectfully submitted,

THOMAS MORE LAW CENTER

By: /s/ Erin Mersino
Case: 14-1341 Document: 74 Filed: 05/15/2014 Page: 32
27

Erin Mersino, Esq.

/s/ William R. Wagner
10

William R. Wagner, Esq.

/s/ John S. Kane
John S. Kane, Esq.

Counsel of Record





CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

I certify that pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7), the foregoing Brief is
proportionally spaced, has a typeface of 14 points Times New Roman, and
contains 7,000 words or less, excluding those sections identified in Fed. R. App. P.
32(a)(7)(B)(iii).
THOMAS MORE LAW CENTER
/s/ Erin Mersino
Erin Mersino (P70886)







10
Although Messers. Wagner and Kane are professors of law employed by the
Thomas M. Cooley Law School, they are not representing the School or its views
in any capacity in this case, but are appearing strictly as private attorneys on an “of
counsel” basis with the Thomas More Law Center.
Case: 14-1341 Document: 74 Filed: 05/15/2014 Page: 33
28

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on May 14, 2014, I electronically filed the foregoing
with the Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit by using the appellate CM/ECF system. Participants in the case who are
registered CM/ECF users will be served by the appellate CM/ECF system. I
further certify that all of the participants in this case are registered CM/ECF users.
THOMAS MORE LAW CENTER

/s/ Erin Mersino
Erin Mersino (P70886)
Case: 14-1341 Document: 74 Filed: 05/15/2014 Page: 34
1

ADDENDUM
List of Amici with Qualifications and Institutional Affiliations
Minister Stacy Swimp
Revive Alive Missional Ministry
Flint, Michigan

Bishop Ira Combs, Jr., D.D.
Greater Bible Way Temple
Jackson, Michigan

Apostle Lennell Caldwell
First Baptist World Changers International Ministries
Detroit, Michigan

Pastor Stacey Foster
Life Changers
Detroit, Michigan

Rev. Dr. Randolph Thomas
Greater Bethlehem MBC
Detroit, Michigan

Rev. Dr. James Crowder
St. Galilee Missionary Baptist Church
Detroit, Michigan

Gina Johnsen, Director
Michigan Capitol House of Prayer
Lansing, Michigan

Pastor Leonard Jackson
Bethel Community
Detroit, Michigan

Apostle Ellis L. Smith
Jubilee Christian Center
Detroit, Michigan

Case: 14-1341 Document: 74 Filed: 05/15/2014 Page: 35
2

Pastor Dr. Rader Johnson, Elder
Greater Bibleway Temple of Apostolic Faith
Bay City, Michigan

Pastor Dr. Phillip Johnson
Greater Bibleway Temple of Apostolic Faith
Bay City, Michigan

Rev. Terry J. Mack
Greater Bethlehem MBC
Detroit, Michigan

Pastor Cedric Robinson
Judah Tabernacle
Melvindale, Michigan

Pastor John Groves
West Wayne Free Will Baptist
Wayne, Michigan

Bishop James A. Williams, Jr.
Spirit & Truth Christian Ministries
Detroit, Michigan

Cal Garcia
Auburn Hills Christian Center
Auburn Hills, Michigan

Pastor Ray Anderson
House of Help Ministries
Detroit, Michigan

Rev. Daniel Moore
Flowery Mount Baptist Church
Detroit, Michigan

Rev. James O’Rear
Greater New Hope Missionary Baptist Church
New Haven, Michigan

Case: 14-1341 Document: 74 Filed: 05/15/2014 Page: 36
3

Rev. John H. Grice, Jr.
Calvary Missionary Baptist Church
Mount Clemens, Michigan

Pastor Donald Potocki
Briarwood Baptist Church
Ann Arbor, Michigan

Pastor Charlie Knighten
Pilgrim Travelers Missionary Baptist Church
Inkster, Michigan

Pastor Charles Johnson III
Anderson Memorial COGIC
Detroit, Michigan

Pastor David McGowan
First Free Will Baptist
Pontiac, Michigan

Dr. Timothy A. Williams
Pastor New Beginnings Cathedral
Detroit, Michigan

Rev. Harold Ewin
Rouge Free Will Baptist
Wyandotte, Michigan

Pastor Lionel Oakes
Kingdom Citizens Worship
Detroit, Michigan

Pastor Dr. Curtis C. Williams
Aijalon Baptist Church and
Owner of Trinity Chapel Funeral Home
Detroit, Michigan

Pastor Daryl Ounanain
Mt. Lebanon Strathmoor Church
Detroit, Michigan
Case: 14-1341 Document: 74 Filed: 05/15/2014 Page: 37
4


Pastor Steve Gallegos
Auburn Hills Christian Center
Auburn Hills, Michigan

Apostle Damon Davis
Kingdom Fire Ministries International
Romulus, Michigan

Pastor Audry Turner
Nehemiah Baptist Church
Detroit, Michigan

Pastor Steven Staten
Unity Temple Church
Detroit, Michigan

Pastor Gary D. Hooks
Fountain of Life & Praise Church
Detroit, Michigan

Dr. Gregory Tukes
True Church Ministries
Detroit, Michigan

Rev. William Revely
Holy Hope Heritage Church
Detroit, Michigan

Rev. Travis Lilly
Faith Free Will Baptist Church
Ray Township, Michigan

Rev. Ron Meadows
Faith Free Will Baptist Church
Ray Township, Michigan

Pastor Fred and Jamie McGlone
New Covenant Christian Church
Lansing, Michigan
Case: 14-1341 Document: 74 Filed: 05/15/2014 Page: 38
5


Rev. James Atkins
Williams Chapel MBC
Detroit, Michigan

Leonard Mungo, Elder
Annapolis Park Church of Christ
Westland, Michigan

Pastor Darrell Moore
New Life COGIC
Roseville, Michigan

Pastor Danny L. Slater
Rouge Free Will Baptist Church
Wyandotte, Michigan

Brian Wright
First Free Will Baptist of Ypsilanti
Ypsilanti, Michigan

Rev. Walker Harris
Belleville Freewill Baptist Church
Belleville, Michigan

Rev. Willie Pitts
Greater King Solomon Church
Detroit, Michigan

Paul and Carolyn Bersche
Paul Bersche Ministries
Farmington, Michigan

Richard Crisco
Rochester First Assembly
Rochester, Michigan

Charles Baughman
Rouge Free Will Baptist Master’s Men
Wyandotte, Michigan
Case: 14-1341 Document: 74 Filed: 05/15/2014 Page: 39
6


Edward Lee Rakes
Rouge Free Will Baptist Youth
Wyandotte, Michigan

Eugene Smith
Greater King Solomon Church
Detroit, Michigan

CL & Verna Johnston
Ignited International Ministries Church
Detroit, Michigan

Pastor Damon Moseley
Bethel Temple Baptist Church
Detroit, Michigan

Pastor Lernard Thomas
Fellowship Churches
Detroit, Michigan

Apostle Diane Chappelle
Apostle at Visions of Hope Fellowship Worldwide
Detroit, Michigan

Apostle Dr. Hattie Archer
Transforming Lives Ministries
Southfield, Michigan

Pastor Datron Davis
Regeneration Church
Detroit, Michigan

Pastor Maurice Hardwick
Solomons Temple
Detroit, Michigan

Cleveland Right to Life
Cleveland, Ohio

Case: 14-1341 Document: 74 Filed: 05/15/2014 Page: 40
7

Dr. Monica Miller
President of Citizens for a Pro-Life Society
Livonia, Michigan

Jacqui Fetsko
Executive Director of Lake County Right to Life
Mentor, Ohio

Cathy Ann Braun
State Coordinator, National Day of Prayer
Lansing, Michigan

Pastor Reuben and Dawn Garcia
True Life Covenant
Clio, Michigan

Linda Harvey, President
Mission America
Columbus, OH

Dr. Kent Spann
Spann Ministries
Grove City, Ohio

Arthur E. Norris
Promotional Director
Michigan State Association of Free Will Baptists
Grand Blanc, Michigan

Mike Albertone
Our Lady of Mount Carmel
Wickliffe, Ohio

Paula M. Long
St. Cyprian Church
Perry, Ohio

Rev. Calvin Brown
Trinity Free Will Baptist Church
Ypsilanti, Michigan
Case: 14-1341 Document: 74 Filed: 05/15/2014 Page: 41
8


Rev. Todd R. Gould
The Evangelical Free Church of Cass City
Cass City, Michigan 48726

Elder, Lutullus S. Penton Jr.
and Yvonne Penton,
Directors of Black Americans for Life
Flint, Michigan

Pastor George Johnson, Jr.
North Warren Free Will Baptist
Warren, Michigan

Pastor Mark Tackett
Heritage Free Will Baptist
Taylor, Michigan

Denver & Marsha Sallee
HELP Pro-Life Apostolate
Middlefield, Ohio

Donna Anderson
St. Cyprian Church
Perry, Ohio

Pastor Rex Evans
First Free Will Baptist Church Of Ypsilanti
Ypsilanti, Michigan

Pastor Rodney J. McTaggart
Bread of Life Harvest Church
Saginaw, Michigan

Pastor Ernest M. Ruemenapp
Family Heritage Baptist Church
Harrisville, Michigan



Case: 14-1341 Document: 74 Filed: 05/15/2014 Page: 42
9

Jessie Still, Senior Leader
Spirit of Christ Church
Haslett, Michigan

Rev. Paul Hancock III and
Rev. Rebecca Hancock
Dearborn Assembly of God Church
Dearborn, Michigan

Joseph A. Wenturine, Senior Pastor
Harvest Christian Church
Marine City, Michigan

Pastor Wendy Waterson
Sanctuary Gate Church
Saint Johns, Michigan

Steve Lockwood
Minister-Owosso Church of Christ
Owosso, Michigan

Brenda Battle Jordan
Former Director of Black Americans for Life and Board Member of
Flint Right to Life
Flint, Michigan

Ken Jordan
Board Member of Flint Right to Life
Flint, Michigan

Pastor Walter S. Moss
New Beginnings Foursquare Gospel Church
Canton, Ohio

Kenneth A. Themm
Board Member & Sunday School Leader at Durand Church of the Nazarene
Under the Direction of Pastor Dr. Michael McCarty
Durand, Michigan

Case: 14-1341 Document: 74 Filed: 05/15/2014 Page: 43
10

Pastor Steven Staten
Unity Temple Apostolic Church
Detroit, Michigan

Pastor Wallace F. Reames III
LifeLine Victory Center
Vassar, Michigan

Rev. Edward Watts
Gateway HOPE Center
Burton, Michigan

Rev. David K. Woodby
Redeemer Lutheran Church
Owosso, Michigan

Senior Pastor Randolph O’Dell
The Crossing Church
Farmington, Michigan

James Muffett, President of Citizens for Traditional Values
Amy Hawkins, Executive Director of Citizens for Traditional Values
Citizens for Traditional Values
Lansing, Michigan

Dr. Michael Ross, President
Defending Our Father’s House
Troy, Michigan

Dr. Mary Ruth Montgomery
Ecclesia International Ministries, Inc.
Warren, Michigan

Bishop Gary Harper
Greater Grace Temple (O.G. Hayes Memorial)
Taylor, Michigan

Elder DeShawn Wilkins
Immanuel Outreach Cathedral
Detroit, Michigan
Case: 14-1341 Document: 74 Filed: 05/15/2014 Page: 44
11


Suffragan Bishop Luke McClendon
Christ Temple Church
Westland, Michigan

Suffragan Bishop Donald Bradley
Bethlehem Temple Apostolic Faith Church
Clinton Township, Michigan

Pastor Kimberly Brown
Zion Cathedral of Praise
Port Huron, Michigan

Elder Keith Spiller
Pentecostal Church of Jesus Christ
East Pointe, Michigan

Elder Grady Coleman
Greater Love Pentecostal Church
Ypsilanti, Michigan

Pastor Clara Simon
Abundance of Life Apostolic Faith Church
Ypsilanti, Michigan

Suffragan Bishop Harry Grayson
Messias Temple Church
Ypsilanti, Michigan

Pastor James Manns
Greater Bibleway Temple
Pontiac, Michigan

District Elder Philip Thompson
Bethlehem Temple Church
Flint, Michigan

Pastor Melvin Davis
Greater Emmanuel Temple
Flint, Michigan
Case: 14-1341 Document: 74 Filed: 05/15/2014 Page: 45
12


Jay McNally, Director
Citizen’s Alliance for Life & Liberty
Ypsilanti, Michigan

Pastor Eric Moore
The Culture of Honor
Detroit, Michigan

Apostle Laurita Bledsoe
God’s Anointed
Detroit, Michigan

Rev. Dr. Roland Caldwell
Burnette Inspirational Ministeries
Detroit, Michigan

Pastor Carol D. Caldwell
First Baptist World Changers International Ministries
Detroit, Michigan

Rev. Cheryl Clark
For Our Children
Detroit, Michigan

Pastor Lawrence Glass
Baptist Pastors of Detroit & its Vicinity
Detroit, Michigan

Minister Dennis Gover
Joshua Temple C.O.G.I.C.
Detroit, Michigan

Associate Pastor Kelvin Lott
Rochester First Assembly
Rochester, Michigan

Senior Pastor John M. Lucas
Bethel Church of the Apostolic Faith
Detroit, Michigan
Case: 14-1341 Document: 74 Filed: 05/15/2014 Page: 46
13


Dr. Ernest Maddox
Dr. Ernest Maddox Ministries
Oak Park, Michigan

Pastor Don Magee
Lakes Baptist Church
Walled Lake, Michigan

Pastor Lee A. Williams
Merciful Ministries International
Romulus, Michigan



Case: 14-1341 Document: 74 Filed: 05/15/2014 Page: 47

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful